IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 26 November 2012 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D76921F86B6 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:59:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LIhv+RTEXQh for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC4821F86B4 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 02:59:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1007; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1353927585; x=1355137185; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Zr6S6tUtSP8Jve4NOEX+zEdsUi4+t8w5+x21CaHSH2g=; b=RunxX/gq0PAiooaAi2goDUD8BT+7IowWRwRtuOsM6W/ceWyrIdXFep5s mq/gTIlwdxys1XtAic/9iRjlNkJg8T7ItB2bh/3fB7+IiqhanyxKS0+k7 HETdwpLIb/Yc29utf/X+JHUERCPIm/YE1DUf5rwSonSusiItNG33RywBP E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFABBLs1CQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABEvE+DUxZzgh4BAQEEOEABEAsYCRYPCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcBAYgJvnyMN4RBA5YBhWuKWYJvgV8FGw
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6907"; a="9916575"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2012 10:59:43 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAQAxh7O024971 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:59:43 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id qAQAxfoG013886; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:59:42 GMT
Message-ID: <50B34B9D.3040102@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:59:41 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <4FDCDA0D.6010204@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FDCDA0D.6010204@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:59:47 -0000

On 16/06/2012 20:10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> In reviewing this document (sorry I am a day late for the WG LC end), 
> a question occurred to me regarding the material in section 2.
>
> Is there reason to believe that existing implementations will process 
> received frames on pt-to-pt Ethernet links where the destination 
> address is 01-00-5E-90-00-00?  If so, should that reason be mentioned 
> (or am I just missing the obvious here?)  If not, is this a safe 
> recommendation?
>
> Otherwise, this is clear and useful.
> Thank you,
> Joel 

Hi Joel, I only just noticed that I did not reply on this.

An MPLS-TP LSR  will reject all ethernet packets received on addresses 
that it is not configured to receive packets on. This is how Ethernet 
interfaces work. Thus an existing implementation will ignore  packets 
sent with a MAC address of 01-00-5E-90-00-00, since the address is not 
meaningful to it and thus will not have been configured for reception.

Regards

Stewart

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status